A major study on organics says, "Yes, absolutely." But the study indicates that the best reason to buy organic produce isn't that it's worlds healthier or better-tasting than conventional produce.

It's no surprise that if I grew up listening to these teachings that I, myself, would be teaching these ideas to my patients as well. But, what's great about modern research is that we now have study results that back up what we inherently knew all along about how our bodies really are reflections of what we eat.

If successful, the initiative will allow voters to choose whether foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) should be labeled as such. Labeling food packaging would allow consumers to make informed decisions about the type of ingredients in the food they eat. GMOs are pervasive in the food system, and current state laws do not require labeling of GMO foods.

According to one of the initiative's sponsors, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), over 80% of Californians polled favor GMO labeling. The OCA asserts that the initiative has been carefully crafted to prevent costs on food consumers or producers. The initiative language will be posted on the Label GMOs website in the coming days.

Monsanto, an international leader well known in developing and selling seeds used in GMO crops, notes on its website that "Monsanto is dedicated to providing full transparency about our company." 

The other day I was at the grocery store and saw something that made me pause: a table of guys selling "energy" bars. These bars were organic, dairy-free, wheat-free, raw, natural — all those trendy catch-words you see so often — but they had the caloric value of a full meal. One of the guys selling them helpfully told me, "This could be your lunch!" And that's when I got worried. Because that bar may be organic, wheat-free and raw, but it isn't food. So here's my suggestion: Let's look past all these trendy, supposed health products and bring back the real trend — food.

The problem with trendy foods is that they confuse people about what's healthy and what's not — sometimes they confuse us so badly that we make very irrational choices. For instance, many people are so worried about carbohydrates that they won't eat a potato, but they'll snack on energy bars dressed up in nothing but healthy catch-words. How do we end up so afraid of a thing grown in the ground that we will choose a product made in a factory instead? Or look at another trend — coconut water. It's hugely popular, but what does the coconut add to hydration? Weren't we hydrated before? All of these factory concoctions are moving us farther away from the most perfect place to be: the kitchen.

We face a major shift in the global conversation on health. Chronic or noncommunicable diseases are leading causes of death worldwide and they play a major role in the viability of national economies. The United Nations will discuss these issues this week in New York. At the root of many of these diseases lie unhealthy diets, whether caused by under- or over-nutrition.

Many approaches have been put on the table to tackle the issue of poor nutrition and make healthy food and drink options available, accessible and affordable for consumers. Those with the greatest potential for success address the heart of the problem: an outdated policy approach to agriculture and food production. Several reports discuss these issues, including a report out of the UK called "The Future of Food and Farming," and Jason Clay's article in Nature titled, Freeze the Footprint of Food. 



The first step toward modernizing the approach is to change the way we define malnutrition. Today's system reflects the old mindset that to be under-nourished is to lack enough calories. While this remains true for almost a billion people, we now know that people whose caloric intake is adequate — or even excessive — can still be under-nourished due to a deficiency of nutrients in the food they eat. They are also at a higher risk for developing often disabling chronic diseases that are expensive for society to treat. Across the globe, a change in government incentives and policies to address the sharp rise in chronic diseases and the crucial role of nutrition in their prevention is imperative. This must be done in ways that not only meet the needs of all people for a diversified diet, but also do not damage the environment.

The food-safety expert says:
Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst the Center for Food Safety

• The organic label guarantees certain standards. Organic-chicken growers are legally prohibited from using sewage sludge as fertilizer, synthetic chemicals not approved by the National Organic Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), or genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—any plant, animal, or microorganism that has been altered through genetic engineering—in the production process. Chickens labeled as "natural," on the other hand, don’t necessarily meet those standards.

• Buying organic may help prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When you crowd chickens together indoors, the way conventional growers do, they’re more likely to produce infectious bacteria, which is why non-organic chickens are fed antibiotics as a norm. But this creates drug-resistant strains of bacteria. These bacteria are normally killed by the heat of cooking, but they can be spread by people who work with the birds. "USDA Organic" chickens, on the other hand, are allowed access to the outdoors; they are given antibiotics only to prevent pain or death, after which they are no longer considered organic.

• Organic is healthier. One study found that organic chicken contained 38% more heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Eating organic chicken may also lower your food-poisoning risk: In a 2010 study, fewer than 6% of organic birds were infected with salmonella, compared with almost 39% of conventional ones.

The dietitian says:
Connie Diekman, RD, director of university nutrition Washington University in St. Louis

• There’s no major nutritional difference. While some studies do show that organic chicken has more omega-3 fatty acids, chicken is low in fat to start with, so you’re not getting much in either case. Beyond that, conventional and organic will give you the same nutritional product—both are good sources of protein.

• Organic may contain less salt and other additives. Many conventional and even "natural" chickens—but not organic ones—are injected with water, salt, and preservatives to add moisture and boost flavor. (Check the ingredients label for salt or other additives.) The upshot is higher sodium.

• There are other foods worthier of your organic dollar. If you can’t afford to buy everything organic, I suggest that you buy natural fruits and vegetables like apples, peaches, spinach, strawberries, and sweet bell peppers, as the treated types often have the highest pesticide residue.
 

By this time, we all pretty much know that we're supposed to be eating whole grains, and lots of them. But if you're anything like me, your notion of exactly what constitutes a "whole grain" (as opposed to what, a "partial grain" or a "half-hearted grain"?) is seriously fuzzy. And exactly how are they obtained from those vast "amber waves of grain," whose virtues we extol in song?

A recent tour of the wonderful Bob's Red Mill in Portland, Ore. opened my eyes to all sorts of new information — though it's old information really, since the milling of grains has been going on for millennia. As far back as the Greek and Roman civilizations, water-powered mills were grinding whole grains to make an array of tasty and healthful foodstuffs.

I learned that a "whole grain" consists of the bran (outer coating), germ (inner heart) and endosperm (central portion). To be considered and labeled "whole," a grain must have all three components, in the proportions in which they are found in nature. So technically, it is permissible to separate the components and recombine them, as long as the amounts and proportions remain the same.

That's where it can get fairly complicated for us poor consumers, trying to sort out exactly what we're getting in various products on the grocery shelves. We know how beneficial whole grains can be, that they can reduce the risks of multiple maladies, including cancer, heart disease and diabete. They provide fiber, complex carbohydrates and protein, all in one tiny little package. And the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, recommend that more than half of our grain intake consist of whole grains, while noting that 95 percent of Americans currently do not achieve this goal. But boy, are all those labels confusing: "Whole wheat" doesn't necessarily mean "whole grain," nor does "nine grain," "multi-grain" or any other "grain."

Here are a few tips to clear away some of the uncertainty:

For flour, cornmeal and such: Look for "whole grain." Avoid the words "refined," "enriched," "bleached" and "bromated."
For cereals: Make sure the first ingredient is designated "whole" — whole corn, rice, etc. (Try my new favorite — Uncle Sam's Whole Wheat Berry Flakes with Wild Strawberries.) Oh, and watch out for the sugar content.
For breads: Read that label! Again, the first ingredient should be a "whole grain." Just because it's brown doesn't mean it's whole grain — molasses may have been used to give it that "whole wheat look."
Buy and cook products that are, by their nature, whole grains: brown rice, rolled oats, quinoa and popcorn — yes, popcorn!
I hope this brief bit of basic information will make it easier to reach and surpass that daily requirement of "three servings of whole grains." Try oatmeal for breakfast (or some great corn-blueberry muffins — see below), make a little grain-and-veggie salad for lunch, have a satisfying brown rice pilaf with your dinner and give yourself and your family the amazing whole-grain health you deserve.
That's where it can get fairly complicated for us poor consumers, trying to sort out exactly what we're getting in various products on the grocery shelves. We know how beneficial whole grains can be, that they can reduce the risks of multiple maladies, including cancer, heart disease and diabete. They provide fiber, complex carbohydrates and protein, all in one tiny little package. And the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, recommend that more than half of our grain intake consist of whole grains, while noting that 95 percent of Americans currently do not achieve this goal. But boy, are all those labels confusing: "Whole wheat" doesn't necessarily mean "whole grain," nor does "nine grain," "multi-grain" or any other "grain."

Here are a few tips to clear away some of the uncertainty:

For flour, cornmeal and such: Look for "whole grain." Avoid the words "refined," "enriched," "bleached" and "bromated."
For cereals: Make sure the first ingredient is designated "whole" — whole corn, rice, etc. (Try my new favorite — Uncle Sam's Whole Wheat Berry Flakes with Wild Strawberries.) Oh, and watch out for the sugar content.
For breads: Read that label! Again, the first ingredient should be a "whole grain." Just because it's brown doesn't mean it's whole grain — molasses may have been used to give it that "whole wheat look."
Buy and cook products that are, by their nature, whole grains: brown rice, rolled oats, quinoa and popcorn — yes, popcorn!
I hope this brief bit of basic information will make it easier to reach and surpass that daily requirement of "three servings of whole grains." Try oatmeal for breakfast (or some great corn-blueberry muffins — see below), make a little grain-and-veggie salad for lunch, have a satisfying brown rice pilaf with your dinner and give yourself and your family the amazing whole-grain health you deserve.

Cilantro: delightful element of delicious tacos and pico de gallo — or horrid herb of death that smacks of soap? Like Facebook's Timeline and every episode of "Glee" ever, there's an undeniable "love it or hate it" quality about cilantro.

Actually, the haters are backed by some respected culinary tastemakers: Ina Garten (aka Barefoot Contessa) and Top Chef Fabio Viviani are the latest celebrity chefs to side with cilantrophobes, as they recently told our TODAY.com team. And Julia Child confessed to Larry King in a 2002 interview that she if she ever sees the herb in something she'd ordered, she would pick it out and "throw it on the floor." Harsh.

On Team Cilantro: behavioral neuroscientist Charles J. Wysocki, of the Morell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. Wysocki has been attempting to pinpoint the polarizing nature of coriander leaves — better known, of course, as cilantro. Wysocki has studied preferences for cilantro in twins, both fraternal and identical. In identical twins, if one twin hates the smell of cilantro, the other is more likely to hate it; the flip side is true, too — if an identical twin loves the smell, the other will likely love it, too.

"That does not hold for fraternal twins," explains Wysocki, adding that these findings "suggest very strongly that whatever it is that people underlies the preference is genetically determined."

Cilantro: Love it or loathe it?

But what is it about cilantro that some people find so intensely offensive? To begin to find out, Wysocki has used gas chromoatography, a contraption that uses heat to separates a complex mixture of molecules — like cilantro — piece by piece, allowing researchers to identify each individual compound, by using both the instrument and their own noses. The GC, as it's called, warms the cilantro, and as it heats up, that "soapy" smell is released. About 10 minutes later, the pleasantly herbaceous cilantro smell is emitted — but the typical cilantro hater still can't smell it.

"What we think might be happening is the person who hates cilantro is, in fact, detecting the soapy odor. But what they seem to be missing is the nice, aromatic, green component," says Wysocki, who thinks the smell of cilantro is quite pleasant. "It’s possible that they have a mutated or even an absent receptor gene for the receptor protein that would interact with the very pleasant smelling compound."

There was a debate in The New York Times yesterday over the "proper" use of SNAP (formerly "food stamp") funds. The basic question is whether use of food assistance dollars should be restricted so as to preclude unhealthful food choices: soda, fast food and so on.

As one might expect, "my" clan-health experts, nutritionists and public health practitioners — whom some of you no doubt see as the food police — generally advocate for such restricted use of SNAP. The basic argument is that the burden of obesity and chronic disease falls disproportionately on the socioeconomically disadvantaged who depend on SNAP (this is certainly true, and very well documented); and there is no legitimate basis to use tax dollars to propagate this problem. They are opposed, however, by similarly well-intentioned anti-hunger professionals and activists, who contend that those facing food insecurity should not be precluded from using food assistance to buy what they want to eat.

If we could walk the proverbial few steps in one another's moccasins (something we seem increasingly incapable of attempting in our polarized society, more's the pity), we might acknowledge that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this divide. We might also acknowledge that a third option might be nice.

There is one.

This debate is really over whether, and how, to wield a stick. Restricting food choices — however good the intentions — is a stick. Justified or not, it is rather heavy-handed. Personalizing it, I note that — despite my well established, left-leaning, public-health-do-gooder bona fides — I would not much care for some government agency telling me what foods I could or could not use my money to buy.

But we could sidestep this contentious debate altogether — or at least defuse its inflammatory potential — by making use of a carrot rather than a stick.

This debate is all about stick, when in fact, a nutritious food — namely, the carrot — is a far more palatable answer; an answer that provides a third option altogether.

We can characterize the current situation in very blunt terms. We, the taxpayers of the U.S., send $100 billion or so to the federal government each year to subsidize the USDAs SNAP program. I have no problem doing my part to make sure my neighbors don't go hungry, so I'm fine with this so far.

But as noted, the burdens of obesity, diabetes and virtually all chronic diseases fall especially hard on the SNAP population. With a truly overwhelming body of literature establishing diet as one of the master levers of medical destiny, we know that poor diet is on the very short list of explanations for this.

And thus, the situation really distills down to this: $100 billion of our taxes is used to help (relatively) poor people procure relatively poor food (thanks to the prevailing, if not entirely correct, inverse association between food cost and nutritional quality) — so they can get to really poor health.

There is, of course, substantial overlap between the population relying on SNAP (which has grown tremendously during this period of economic hardship) and the population relying on Medicaid. And so, we are also on the hook for a vastly larger allocation of tax dollars to Medicaid to pay the costs associated with poor health, and propagated by poor food (among a short list of other major influences).

Again, I am okay with using some of my hard-earned dollars to make sure my neighbor can receive medical care he or she can't otherwise afford. But let's face it, in this scenario, everyone loses.

We, the taxpayers, lose; we are spending some of our heard-earned money to create a problem, and more of our heard-earned money to — at best — only partially fix it. We are billed twice, and aren't getting much reward for our pains.

The government loses because this inefficient allocation of funds siphons money away from other worthy causes: everything from education, to military preparedness, to the maintenance of our increasingly questionable infrastructure.

And the SNAP participants lose the most of all. They are the ones left to struggle with the combination of poverty and chronic disease.

While some restrictions on the use of SNAP dollars certainly makes sense to me, what makes far more sense is to incentivize the more nutritious food choice, from soup to nuts, so that more nutritious always means less expensive.

Using a system such as one I helped to develop (Nuval) that can objectively stratify the nutritional quality of any food or meal in a manner that correlates with health outcomes, foods could be put into quartiles (or quintiles, or deciles) of 'nutritiousness' by category (i.e., breads, cereals, lunch entree, dinner entree, etc.).

The purchasing power of 'food stamps' could then be linked to overall nutritional quality: The higher the nutritional quality, the lower the cost. Even a tiny improvement in health outcomes associated with this initiative could pay for it 10 times over (several of the world's leading health economists have collaborated with me on developing this concept, and concur — although we all agree on the need to prove it). Everyone wins.

The good news is that healthy meals don't have to mean breaking the piggy bank, according to registered dietitian Marissa Lim. Eating well on a budget just requires a bit more time and energy.

Keep an eye out for sales. Take a few minutes to flip through your local flyers or check online to see what's on sale at your grocery store. "When fresh produce is on sale, buy extra and freeze it if you have the space," says Lim. "You can use it in recipes or as side dishes, depending on what the produce is, and it's a great way to add flavour and colour to your meals." Berries beans, carrots, corn, broccoli and cauliflower and spinach are a few of the items that freeze well (and in case you were wondering, freezing produce doesn't diminish its nutritional content to any great extent).

Prep ahead of time though — you'll need the proper containers to prevent freezer burn, and label them clearly so you can easily identify them a few weeks down the line. Yes, it may require a bit more prep work in the beginning, says Lim, but it can be a great timesaver during a busy week.

Read More…

Happy Friday! I’m preparing to interview for a summer hospital volunteer position (cross your fingers for me!) and then it’s off to Virginia for some weekend backpacking with M—my first backpacking trip ever, I should add. Exciting! In preparation for this adventure, I decided to spend my Friday morning preparing a nutritious and portable snack.

There’s nothing too surprising about this recipe: they’re just like any other raw “doughnut hole” or ball, except that I tried to pack in a little more nutrition and texture with the addition of hemp protein and cacao nibs. I also used, as my base, a cup of special and high-quality cashews, which I received to review from the fine folks at Servv, a co-op that works to bring artisanal foods from all over the world to the US. These cashews, collected and distributed by the nonprofit and fair trade company Just Cashews, are grown and processed in Honduras by a farmer cooperative. While not raw, these cashews are remarkably special: they’re roasted on adobe ovens, and they have an incredible, smoky flavor that I’ve fallen in love with (additionally, there’s some debate about whether or not it’s possible to get any cashews that are actually raw, though I do try to buy ones labeled as such whenever I can).

 Read More…

I have a new crush.  A crush on coconut.

I hope you like it too as I will be adding it to a lot of my upcoming recipes.  I have started using it every which way.  I like my coconut flaked, I like the milk, the extract and the oil.  It’s all good.  Last year I had a caramel obsession.  That was quite a bit more caloric and limiting.  I can add coconut to both sweet and savory dishes.  Coconut curry, yum.  Coconut muffins and cakes, sinful!  Caramelizing, great cooking technique.  Caramel sauce in my savories, uh no.  Wearing caramel on my hips…….BIG NO!!  Good thing coconut has taken over my caramel addiction.I promised the kids this past weekend that we would do some baking.  While they were busy running around the house being playful and territorial, I invented this recipe for Coconut Cornbread Muffins with Candied Ginger.  I keep a few cans of light coconut milk on hand these days, I am grabbing about one can per week for my recipes.The nice thing about coconut, a little goes a long way as far as flavor and texture go.  When I use flaked coconut, I choose the unsweetened variety.  For coconut milk, I opt for the reduced fat.  I try to keep things as clean, light and healthy as I can.  Coconut adds such a great dimension to a huge gamut of recipes. The small amount of fat found in the low fat coconut milk makes things creamy and satisfying.

Read More…

We then moved to building a structure around out pile out of wood and patio pavers, but you can use any kind of containment device you have available. You could just reign it in with chicken wire, if that suits your needs. You do want air to be able to get at the pile, though, so keep that in mind when choosing what you want to use.

Read More…

I myself am constantly in debate about whether meat should play a part in the future of eating at all. What I do know is that when reared properly, a cow can actually give back to the earth rather than take away from it. This method often takes more land and is currently more expensive, but the era of cheap meat at every meal needs to end. I will stop with my opinions and let Tod Churchill, owner and founder of Thousand Hills Cattle Company, explain the intrecacies of raising cows on grass.

Read More…

First, you’ll need a watertight tray. This one came with Ikea cinnamon rolls in it, picked up one day while we were picking up some necessities. The bonus here is the clear plastic top. While you don’t have to have a lid, the clear plastic one will act as a mini greenhouse for our tiny plants. (Pretend the lid is in the picture. You can see it below.) You’ll also need a few empty toilet paper rolls or paper towel rolls. These will become our pots.

Read More…

There are various schools of thought within the vegan and raw communities on how much protein we need and how best we should source it. Some vegans seem overly nervous about the “protein question,” recommending a wide array of powders, soy foods, and bars, or brown rice protein shakes consumed every few hours. Other vegans (especially in the raw community) like to tell us that everything we’ve ever learned about protein is straight up BS, and that, as long as we drink some juice and eat some leafy greens, we’re fine.

I fall someplace in the middle of these two camps. I don’t believe that high protein diets—say, 80 g or more of protein daily—are either necessary or necessarily healthy, especially if that protein comes from animal sources. I also think it’s foolish to claim that we need give no attention to our protein needs. Vegans do have to work a little harder at protein sourcing. That doesn’t mean we need to drive ourselves crazy, and it doesn’t mean that we’re at any significant disadvantage. It simply means we need to be mindful.

As a general rule, I think that most nutrition professors (my own former professors included) have it right. They’ll probably tell you that 45-65 grams of protein a day is a good guideline for women of average height and activity level (this would be slightly higher for men). It’s a reasonable guideline: what I take issue with is the notion that we have to eat animal foods in order to satisfy it. The claim that we have to eat “complete” proteins at each and every meal has been disproven, even within the mainstream nutrition community: it’s now a universally acknowledged fact that, if one eats all of the essential amino acids over the course of days and weeks, our bodies will assemble complete proteins on their own. So the question becomes, what protein sources can vegans rely on that will give them all of the amino acids they need?

Read More…

I was at Basha's, the local super-sized super-market near Phoenix. It's a cavernous place that feels like an airplane hangar. Everything about it is big. The aisles are wide enough to drive a tractor through, the cereals are family-sized for a family of ten, the end-of-aisle displays are monolithic towers, screaming their offers out as you round the corner, "80% off when you buy two bags of Tostitos and dip!" This is grocery shopping in high definition. As vast as the store is though, it was also eerily empty. It felt like someone had thrown a huge party, put out all the food, but no one was showing up. The registers were lit but no one was paying. This only added to its bigness.

I know I'm comparing it to shopping in New York City where you shop with a hand basket over your forearm, and stores don't have parking lots and where you can buy bread in half-loaves, but still, this tipped the scales at over three football fields.

I rang the bell at the butcher counter. "I'm looking for just enough chicken for three people, but I only see big sizes." He came around the counter. "We actually don't carry small sizes, but we have a special on where you can get two two-pound packs of chicken breasts for the price of one." (Buying just one was not an option — the second one was bound with cellophane to the first.) "So I can't buy just one of the packs and I can't request a smaller amount from you?" "No, but this is an excellent price and you're getting a lot of chicken." He was right. I was getting a lot of cheap chicken. The problem was, I didn't want a lot of cheap chicken.

Read More…

Letting consumers know exactly how many calories are in their food might do little to change their eating habits, a new study suggests.

The results show that, in the case of one fast-food chain in Washington, adding nutritional information to menus did not change consumer behavior after one year.

The study comes just a few months before the nation is set to post mandated nutrition labels on menus at restaurants with 20 locations or more.

The findings suggested that nutrition labels alone might do little to ease the obesity epidemic, the researchers said. Additional public health campaigns might be needed to explain how the labels can be used by consumers to manage their diet and improve health.

"Obesity has lots of contributing causes, and so controlling it will undoubtedly require lots of contributing solutions," said Elizabeth Pulos, a researcher at the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department in Tacoma, Wash., who has studied nutritional labels on menus and was not involved in the new study. While the jury is still out on how effective labels are at helping people lose weight, as a consumer, Pulos would nevertheless like to know what's in her food, she told MyHealthNewsDaily.

The new findings also suggest that those who want to eat healthier already know which menu options contain fewer calories, so making nutrition information available doesn't change these customers' behavior, the researchers said.

Because the study looked at only one restaurant chain in one part of the country, more research needs to be done to determine if labeling might have a bigger impact if implemented on a larger scale.

The results were published today (Jan. 14) in the American Journal for Preventive Medicine.

Nutrition labels

So far, just a handful of studies have looked at the real-world impact of displaying nutrition labels on restaurant menus. One study found no change in consumer behavior. Another found that consumers, on average, purchased foods containing fewer calories after nutrition labels were added, but it was not clear if this effect was sustained for more than one month.

Read More…

Many farmers had been pushing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve the use of genetically modified alfalfa. Monsanto developed the seed to resist the weedkiller Roundup, allowing farmers to use the two together to save time and labor on weeding. Supporters also say the use of the genetically modified seeds lets farmers grow more alfalfa on each acre and helps keep food prices low.

Opponents, many of them organic farmers, say widespread planting of genetically modified alfalfa will result in pollen from those plants contaminating organic and traditional crops, destroying their value. While alfalfa is mostly used as hay for cattle, some consumers don't want to eat foods, such as milk or beef, from animals that have consumed genetically modified plants.

Alfalfa is grown on about 20 million acres in almost every state in the U.S. and is the fourth-largest field crop behind corn, soybeans and wheat.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision late last month to deregulate genetically modified alfalfa was the latest step in a long court fight over its use. A federal court barred its planting in 2007, saying the USDA had not given enough consideration to the effects it could have on the environment and human health. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted the ban last year, saying the lower court's decision had gone too far. It kicked the matter back to the USDA.

In announcing the agency's decision, Vilsack said steps would be taken to ensure genetically modified alfalfa wouldn't cross-pollinate with organic and unmodified crops. USDA officials declined to answer questions about what those steps would entail, pointing to a document posted on the agency's website.

The text of Vilsack's announcement says the agency plans include expanding a program in Washington state to produce more unmodified alfalfa seed and maintain a pure supply.

It also says crop geneticists have been told to identify ways to protect unmodified alfalfa from genetically engineered varieties, like they are doing for corn. And, Vilsack has proposed research to improve detection of modified genes in alfalfa and hay. He also promised $1 million for research on the flow of pollen to better determine how big buffer zones between modified and unmodified fields must be to prevent contamination.

None of that will be enough to prevent contamination, said Jeff Wolt, an agronomist with Iowa State University's Seed Science Center.

Read More…

In an effort to get back to the basics with healthy eating, Lisa and Jason Leake gave up unprocessed for an entire 100 days. The North Carolina parents of two decided it was time to give up the sugar infused packaged goods for a period of unrefined choices straight out of their backyard.

Read More…

Why are Processed Meats So Deadly?
Processed meats are those preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or the addition of chemical preservatives. This includes bacon, ham, pastrami, salami, pepperoni, hot dogs, some sausages and hamburgers (if they have been preserved with salt or chemical additives) and more.

Particularly problematic are the nitrates that are added to these meats as a preservative, coloring and flavoring. The nitrates found in processed meats are frequently converted into nitrosamines, which are clearly associated with an increased risk of certain cancers.

It's for this reason that the USDA actually requires adding ascorbic acid (vitamin C) or erythorbic acid to bacon cure, as it helps reduces the formation of nitrosamines.

Meat cooked at high temperatures, as many processed meats often are, can also contain as many as 20 different kinds of heterocyclic amines, or HCAs for short. These substances are also linked to cancer.

Read More…

The first details results of an adult consumer survey, which illustrate that while the percentage of people who buy organic over the past two years hasn't budged, what has changed is where they're buying it. Fewer sales are coming from Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and natural foods stores, with more generated at Target and conventional grocers such as Safeway.

Read More…

There are now more than 300 farmers markets in the LA area, with more opening every month. But an NBCLA undercover investigation has revealed that some farmers at these markets are making false claims and flat-out lies about the produce they're selling.

Farmers markets have become wildly popular with shoppers like Jami Hoffman, who buys her produce every Sunday at the farmers market in the Larchmont neighborhood of LA. She says she shops there because she thinks the produce is fresher than what you get at supermarkets.

"It's all about local, and getting it directly from the farmers," Hoffman said.

NBCLA's investigation began this summer, when we bought produce at farmers markets across the LA area, and then made surprise visits to farms where we were told the produce was being grown.

We found farms full of weeds, or dry dirt, instead of rows of the vegetables that were being sold at the markets. In fact, farmers markets are closely regulated by state law. Farmers who sell at these markets are supposed to sell produce they've grown themselves, and they can't make false claims about their produce.

Read More…